Federal Aviation Administration- Small UAS (sUAS) 

Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Department of Transportation has determined that this proposed action qualifies for 

categorical exclusion pursuant to Paragraph 4.c.5 ofDOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979) and FAA Order 1050.1F, 

paragraph 5-6.6(f).1 Paragraph 4.c.5 of DOT Order 5610.1C incorporates by reference actions 

identified by FAA as categorical exclusions. 

Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing procedures that 

do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either 

an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR 

§1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider 

whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or 

EIS. Id. Extraordinary Circumstances are factors or circumstances·in which a normally 

categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact that then requires 

further analysis in an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS). An extraordinary circumstance exists if a proposed action involves any of the following 

circumstances and has the potential for a significant impact. Based on the information known at 

this time and what is reasonably foreseeable, pursuant to FAA Order 1050.1F, the FAA has not 

identified any extraordinary circumstances? 

The Department is adopting specific rules to enable the integration of the lowest-risk small UAS 

operations into the NAS, pursuant to section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

(Public Law 112-95). This rulemaking does not apply to public aircraft operations of small UAS 

1 FAA has determined that this final rulemaking is covered by the CATEX described in paragraph 5-6.6(f) of FAA 

Order 1050.1F. This is because the FAA relied upon the categorical exclusion in section 312(f) of FAA Order 

lOSO.lE in the Small UAS Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). Since the NPRM, the FAA has updated the 

order and the corollary provision in the new order is paragraph 5-6.6(f). 2 FAA issued a Categorical Exclusion for the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) pursuant to paragraph 

3l2(f) of Order l 050.1E. FAA recently updated this Order. The Categorical Exclusion for regulatory actions 

previously contained in paragraph 312(f) is now in Paragraph 5-6.6(f) of Order 1050.1F. 

Page 1 of6 
that are not operated as civil aircraft and does not affect operation of UAS by recreational users 

who comply with Section 336 of Public Law 112-95, Special Rule for Model Aircraft. 

The Flight Standards Service, (General Aviation Operations Branch AFS-830) has considered 

the potential environmental effects of the rule and reviewed comments on the small UAS NPRM. 

Based upon FAA's forecasts, a noise assessment based on certification data for two small UAS 

and supporting documentation available from small UAS manufacturers, and the best available 

information regarding intensity of use, location, and the characteristics ofUAS covered by the 

rule (less than 55 pounds and primarily electric/battery powered), our review concludes that the 

final rule qualifies for a CATEX would not produce significant environmental impacts and 

involves no extraordinary circumstances. 

Public Involvement: The rule itself was made available for a 60 day comment period that began 

on February 23, 2015 and ended on April24, 2015. CFR: 14 CFR Parts 21 , 43, 45, 47, 61, 91, 

101, 183, Federal Register Number: 2015- 03544. There were approximately 4,700 comments 

received via the NPRM process for small UAS, some of which regarded environmental issues. 

Comments were considered and were responded to in the preamble. The areas of concern 

' 

identified by commenters were considered in determining if there were extraordinary 

circumstances under Paragraph 5-2 of Order 1050.1F. The basis for determining that the action 

would not cause significant impacts or involve extraordinary circumstances is detailed below. 

Potential for Significant Impacts and Extraordinary Circumstances: The FAA considered 

potential effects of the rule in the following environmental impact categories, based on the nature 

of small UAS operations covered by the regulation and input received during the public 

comment period: 

• Historic and Cultural Resources 

• Wildlife 

• Noise Impacts 

• Air Quality 

• Visual Impacts 

Page 2 of6 
In addition, FAA evaluated the potential for the rule to be highly controversial on environmental 

grounds, which is listed as an extraordinary circumstance in Paragraph 5-2 ofFAA Order 

10501.F. 

Historic and Cultural Resources: FAA considered the potential for small UAS operating 

under this rule to affect historic properties subject to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. An impact constitutes an "effect" under Section 106 if it directly or indirectly 

alters the characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places. FAA determined that the potential for small UAS operating under this rule to 

"affect" a historic property is limited to indirect noise impacts. 

Unless a quiet setting is an attribute of the property's significance, FAA relies on its land use 

compatibility guidelines to evaluate noise impacts on historic properties. For example, historic 

properties in residential use would be considered to be compatible at noise levels below DNL 

65dB. FAA's noise assessment indicated that it is highly unlikely that noise generated by small 

UAS subject to this rule would exceed the land use compatibility guidelines. Although the land 

use guidelines may not be relevant for certain types of historic properties, where a quiet setting is 

an attribute of the property's significance, and because the Rule applies nationwide, it is not 

feasible to identify individual properties of this type that may be affected by noise from Small 

UAS operating under this Ru1e. 

Wildlife: The FAA considered the small UAS rule's potential to affect wildlife. UAS are 

anticipated to be very useful in the research of various species as they may be less stressful on 

species than human presence. The potential impacts of concern are when UAS are not used in 

accordance with existing laws that protect wildlife. FAA discussed with the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Sanctuaries their support of the small 

UAS rule and concerns with the potential impacts ofUAS on wildlife. FAA recognized the 

potential of small UAS operations to affect birds and wildlife, but concluded that this rule does 

not authorize such action or affect existing prohibitions on the harassment, harming, or killing of 

birds, mammals or ocean dwelling animals protected by other laws. It was determined that the 

best way to limit any impacts to listed species from the misuse ofUAS is by educating the user. 

Page 3 of6 
FAA has included a link to NOAA's website in the Final Rule to ensure that pilots receive 

notification of laws that protect these species. 

Noise: FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (July 16, 2015) 

provides a significant impact threshold for noise as an increase of more than a yearly day-night 

average sound level (DNL) 1.5 dB increase in noise sensitive areas exposed to aircraft noise at or 

above DNL 65 dB (or that will be at or above the DNL 65 dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB or 

greater increase), when compared to the no action alternative for the same timeframe. Areas 

exposed to aircraft noise at these levels are generally found in the vicinity of airports, and 

therefore are unlikely to be subject to noise from small UAS operating under this rule, which 

limits their use in Class B, C and D airspace. 

FAA land use compatibility guidelines establish DNL 65 dB as compatible with residential, 

public, commercial, manufacturing and production, and recreational land uses. To illustrate how 

the noise of an individual small UAS might relate to the land use planning guidelines, FAA used 

data from the noisier of the two small UAS airworthiness and noise certification 

projects. Calculations showed that it would take over 6,000 flights of the heavier of the two 

certificated UAS over one 24-hour period at an altitude of 200 feet to produce a noise level of 

DNL 65 dB, and at 400 feet altitude over the measurement point, there would need to be 25,000 

flights in one 24-hour period to produce this level of noise. The FAA does not anticipate this 

level of small UAS operations at any location in the United States, nor would the airspace over a 

particular location support such levels of activity. 

Air Quality: The FAA considered the potential emissions from small UAS operating under this 

rule. The majority of small UAS currently available are powered by electricity (i.e. through 

battery-powered electric motors) and generally do not produce the pollutants covered by the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Based on this information the FAA believes 

that emissions attributable to UAS operating subject to this regulation will not cause significant 

air quality impacts or cause any exceedance of air quality standards. 

Page 4 of6 
Impacts that are likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds: The term 

"highly controversial on environmental grounds" means there is a substantial dispute involving 

reasonable disagreement over the degree, extent, or nature of a proposed action's environmental 

impacts or over the action's risks of causing environmental harm and has the potential for a 

significant impact. Mere opposition is not sufficient for a proposed action or its impacts to be 

considered highly controversial, but the FAA considers opposition on environmental grounds by 

a Federal, state, or local government agency or by a tribe or a substantial number of the persons 

affected by the action in determining whether this extraordinary circumstance precludes the use 

of a CATEX. In the case of the small UAS proposed rule, there were approximately 200 

comments raising concerns on environmental grounds out of approximately 4,600 comments. 

No governmental agency or tribe expressed opposition, based on environmental grounds, to this 

rule being implemented. For this reason, FAA has determined that the rule is not highly 

controversial on environmental grounds and does not trigger this extraordinary circumstance. 

Visual effects: The FAA considers the extent to which an action would affect the nature of the 

visual character of the area, including the importance, uniqueness, and aesthetic value of the 

affected visual resources; contrast with the visual resources and/or visual character in the study 

area; and block or obstruct the views of visual resources, including whether these resources 

would still be viewable from other locations. Small UAS operating under this rule would not 

block or obstruct views. The other aspects of visual impact can only be evaluated based on the 

environment in which the activity would occur. Although the FAA received a comment 

expressing concern about the visual impact of a UAS on the natural landscape, the commenter 

did not cite specific locations or provide evidence to support this concern. Based on the size of 

UAS covered by this rule and the lack of any specific information concerning locations with 

visual character or visual resources that might be adversely affected, FAA concluded that this 

rule would not result in significant visual impacts. 

Page 5 of6 
FAA Decision: 

Having reviewed the above information, verified by the responsible Flight Standards 

Environmental Specialist, it is the FAA's decision that the proposed Small UAS CATEX 

warrants environmental processing as indicated below. 

_X_ No further NEPA review required. Project is categorically excluded per paragraph 5-6.6 of 

FAA Order 1050.1F. 

__ An Environmental Assessment (EA) is required. 

__ An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. 

__ The following additional documentation is necessary for FAA to perform a complete 

environmental evaluation of the proposed project. 

This decision is consistent with FAA's determination that the Federal action to approve the use 

of Small UAS for commercial operations is at this time categorically excluded from further 

environmental analysis per paragraph 5-6.6 ofFAA Order 1050.1F. Furthermore, the proposed 

Federal action has no extraordinary circumstances as contained in paragraph 5-2 of the same 

order. 

Responsible FAA Officials 

Name: Mark E. Giron Title: Manager, General Aviation Operations Branch, AFS-830 

Signature * .¥:::::::~=--------Date 3/9/2016 

Name: Eric Dunlap Title: Environmental Program Manager, A VS 

Signature£' ~ ~£-- Date -=-3.:..._:/ 1'-'---/_6---'-o {-'-=--~ _ 

Page 6 of6